Republic of Brazil -v- Durant [2012] JRC 062 (23 March 2012)

Republic of Brazil -v- Durant [2012] JRC 062 (23 March 2012)

The absence of in-person cross-examination does not, of itself, justify the exclusion of otherwise admissible hearsay evidence. The opportunity for cross-examination by video-link remains available and is sufficient to meet the interests of justice. The trial court is best placed to determine the weight to be given to such evidence, and exclusion should only occur in exceptional circumstances, which are not present here.

Citation
[2012] JRC 062
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Defendants
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination, Video Link Testimony
Civil Procedure Evidence Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Cross Examination Video Link Testimony

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the witness statements of Messrs Santoro, Alves, and Fernandes should be excluded from evidence as hearsay due to the absence of cross-examination in person.
  2. 2 Whether the inability to cross-examine witnesses in person in Jersey constitutes sufficient unfairness to justify exclusion of their statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of in-person cross-examination does not, of itself, justify the exclusion of otherwise admissible hearsay evidence. The opportunity for cross-examination by video-link remains available and is sufficient to meet the interests of justice. The trial court is best placed to determine the weight to be given to such evidence, and exclusion should only occur in exceptional circumstances, which are not present here.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The defendants' application to exclude the witness statements of Messrs Santoro, Alves, and Fernandes is dismissed.
  • Leave is granted to the defendants under Royal Court Rule 6/22 to call and cross-examine Messrs Santoro and Alves, provided this can be accommodated within the trial period and fair notice is given.